2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1) On February 5, 2002, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 467-17, 37, and 3407 (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”) with the price of KRW 830,40,713 (the contract is KRW 830,560,000).

2) On April 18, 2003, the instant house had been registered for ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future with respect to the instant house. The instant house is indicated as the area of 162.60 square meters in the indication column of collective building register or the building for exclusive use in the real estate register.

3) On February 26, 2004, the Plaintiff sold the instant house in KRW 1,880,000,000 to the head of the Dong (the contract is March 1, 2004). On March 26, 2004, the ownership of the instant house was registered in the future of the head of the Dong on the instant house.

4) On May 31, 2004, pursuant to Article 99-3(1), etc. of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002), the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to the transfer of the instant house, and voluntarily paid KRW 79,392,52,520.

5) As to this, the Defendant revised and notified the Plaintiff on June 1, 2006, a transfer income tax of 400,852,850 won for transfer income tax for the year 2004, on the ground that a balcony exists in the outer wall of the building and the area of balcony 31.53 square meters exceeds 165 square meters, unlike general apartments installed with balcony outside the outer wall of the building in light of the characteristics of construction method, such as Curtain construction method, and in this case, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from applying for reduction and exemption on the ground that the area exceeds 165 square meters, which is a requirement for reduction and exemption of transfer income tax.

6) The Plaintiff filed an objection on August 11, 2006, and filed an appeal on December 21, 2006. The Plaintiff rendered a decision to reduce the amount of KRW 48,507,243 on August 31, 2006, and the decision to reduce the amount of KRW 42,714,765 on November 207, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) among the dispositions made on June 1, 2006, only 309,630,746 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

7) The date of dismissal decision by the National Tax Tribunal regarding the instant disposition is November 8, 2007. The filing date of the instant lawsuit is October 12, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues;

1) According to Articles 99(1) and 99-3(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002), Article 29(1) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002), Article 89 subparag. 3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781 of Dec. 18, 2002), Article 156 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17751 of Oct. 1, 2002), the tax authority shall reduce or exempt all transfer income tax on any income accruing from a resident’s acquisition of a newly-built house from a housing developer and transfer it within five years from the date of its acquisition, and the provisions of the Income Tax Act (the exclusive use area of a newly-built house shall be at least 165 square meters and more than the actual transaction price at the time of transfer).

2) The fact that the actual transaction price of the instant house exceeds 600,000,000 won at the time of transfer, and that the area for exclusive use by the public account book of the instant house does not meet the high-class housing standard, but the fact that the area for exclusive use by the public account book includes balcony area in the area for exclusive use by the area for exclusive use by the public account meets

3) Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the balcony area should be included in the exclusive area in determining whether it constitutes a high-class house.

3. Judgment on the issue

(a) A person in charge of building administration and tax administration on the balcony of an apartment house and a side of the solar surface; and

In trading multi-family housing between the general public, the Defendant does not pay more attention to how much the balcony area is, and in making various reports related to taxes, various practices have been established on the basis of the exclusive area in the public register except balcony area, and the tax authorities also have not submitted evidence or data to reject that the area of the exclusive area in the public register (exclusive area) as taxation data even in the case where the "exclusive area" becomes the basis for the imposition of taxes. Furthermore, the Jung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., which supplied the instant housing in this case, constructed the exclusive area (excluding the balcony area) with a smaller than 162.60 square meters in the high-class housing area under the laws and regulations at the time, and the Plaintiff also purchased the instant housing by trusting such practices.

Therefore, it has been established that the area of balcony does not include the area of balcony in the exclusive use area of multi-family housing, and the practice of administrative practices related to housing and construction has been established, which accepted it in tax administration as it is, and the practice of taking the exclusive use area in public register as taxation data has been generally accepted by taxpayers.

B. Real estate register, a manager of a building register, and a state of legal nature manage a real estate register and a building register, and one of the main management purposes is the promptness and accuracy of taxes. Unlike other documents, the accuracy of each entry in a real estate register and a building register managed by the State, etc. is legally or factually presumed. In order to accomplish the underlying taxation principle, the tax authorities should impose taxes on the matters entered in the real estate register and building register, barring special circumstances, and such need is more required in standardized and large-scale condominium buildings. If the tax authorities allow taxation to be easily granted differently from the area of the section for exclusive use in the real estate register and building register, such promptness and accuracy can be harmed.

Therefore, in order for the tax authorities to include and impose the balcony area in the area for exclusive use of multi-family housing, they should include the balcony area in the real estate register and the building ledger managed by the State, or in the absence of such reflection, there is no evidence or explicit taxation provision that can recognize the above circumstances in this case.

(c) Tax administration pages;

Since the regulations on high-class houses are mainly focused on detached houses despite the rapid change in the residential way in the apartment house from the apartment house to the apartment house, it is necessary to resolve the existing distance between the apartment house and the apartment house.

However, this gap resolution or equity security can be sufficiently achieved by adding up the areas of common areas that have a profound impact on the value of multi-family housing, easing the regional standards, standards for the exclusive use area, and standards for the actual transaction price, or by introducing an explicit provision that includes the exclusive area of modern spaces such as balcony.

In particular, compared to the recent system windows that are used in general apartments, it is identical in that both the string and system windows are combined with sludge using materials, such as aluminium glass and ethyl, or poppy, or poppy. It is difficult to view that there is a qualitative difference between the external walls and windows of the balcony of general apartment and the outer walls of the main complex building, and if there is a difference, it is difficult to treat it differently in tax administration due to the technical difference in this degree. Furthermore, it is difficult to treat it differently in tax administration on the grounds of the technical difference in the degree of this. Moreover, it is difficult to treat the balcony, regardless of the public law, in the dwelling space of high-rises, in the middle area, to secure the safety of residents, in particular, minors or infants, and to treat the balcony, which serves as such safety board, in tax administration, it is difficult to treat it differently.

D. Sub-determination

In the case of the former deeming the main complex building apartment as different from the general apartment, it is illegal to impose tax by including the balcony area in the exclusive use area, which is generally accepted by the taxpayer, as it goes against the national tax administration practices.

4. Method by which the State realizing litigation and economy, etc.

In a case where there are a number of the same issues, and where one of the parties is the state, rather than responding to or appeal by the State, it is possible for all of the people and the State to follow the final judgment of the judiciary on the preceding cases or specific cases, or to undertake the same contents as above to the people and the State, which would be beneficial to all of the people and the State. As such, in terms of the protection of the rights of the people and the economy of the litigation, these remarks, etc. should be recommended. In this case, there is no probability of the defendant in this case, and it is essential for the judiciary to allow the flow of the case rather than having it stay

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is accepted as it is reasonable.